Pages

Saturday, December 30, 2006

Well, we're heading into 2007. Seven years into the new millennium. What has been achieved in the past year? Well let's see.

Hundreds of millions are still starving in a world that could feed us all.

Millions are dying of preventable diseases, in a world that has medicines and the know-how to treat their illnesses

Hundreds off millions of people, whose skills and labour could be benefit society, are idle because it is not profitable to employ them.

Wars rage in 30 countries, with more and bigger wars prophesised for the future – over oil and water and other dimishing resources.

Hundreds of billons of dollars are being spent on ever more ingenious methods of taking life and thousands of the best scientific minds are involved in this "business".

In a world of potential abundance, in a world in which we have the means to provide every human on the planet with a comfortable standard of living, the above takes place. How sad and obscene. How hollow the word "civilisation" sounds in Capitalism.

Homelessness, poverty, unnecessary deaths, war, stress, want, fear and insecurity. All this we can safely predict for 2007. This is a certainty in 2007. For this, regardless of what the apologists for capitalism would have you believe, is the legacy of Capitalism in the 21st century.

The real challenge of the 21st century, however, stil stands before us - to create a society where the happiness and good of one is the condition of the happiness and good of all.

We have the resources, both human and material, to achieve this. What we do not have is the will or understanding.

As a well known thinker once said, the philosophers have merely interpreted the world; the real task is to change it. And may it speed the day.

Saturday, December 23, 2006

Jack Valenti laments "..that Clint Eastwood's Flags of Our Fathers, his masterly recreation of courage and fidelity to duty and country exhibited by young Marines in the bloodiest battle of World War II, has gone largely unattended by the youngsters of this day." Clearly, this worker has learned nothing about the true nature of war since his days a a bomber pilot during World War II. Indeed, how, we might ask, does he rationalize the tragic end of one of the six workers who by raising the flag of American capitalism over the mass, meaningless slaughter that was just one battle during that war achieved a very dubious immortality?

The tragic end of Ira Hayes is noted in the March-April. 1955 edition of The Western Socialist:

"On Jan. 24 Ira Hayes was found dead on the desert of the Gila Indian Reservation of Arizona. According to the medical report he died of overexposure and alcoholism. Hayes, a Prima Indian, gained famed as one of the soldiers caught by a camera in a dramatic raising of the American flag on Mount Surabachi, Iwo Jima during World War II. Brought back home he was feted as a national hero appearing at bond rallies and patriotic affairs. He became immortalized in stamps and bronze. Glorified in war, Hayes found there was no place for him in peace. In his own words - "In Arizona the white race looks down on the Indian and I don't stand a chance anywhere off the reservation unless I come East." Hayes tried to find escape via the bottle in which he came into a series of clashes with the police until death ended his misery. A hero of the hell of war, he couldn't stand the hell of peace."

"..The war movies that I grew up watching portrayed a clear picture of who was good and who was evil. However, in life and in war, nothing is that clear. These 2 films are not about who won or who lost. It is about what war does to people, people who would’ve gone on to live their full lives otherwise. From whichever perspective, soldiers who sacrifice their lives in battle are worthy of respect. These 2 films are my way of paying tribute to those fallen soldiers. By telling the stories of these men from both perspectives, it is my hope that the films will illustrate the things in common that both sides shared, and allow us to look at that difficult time in our history with entirely new eyes.”

Another entirely different, revolutionary, perspective is needed however. One which, alas, will not be coming to a cinema near you in the near future (But, meanwhile however...)

"We who are Socialists are all in favour of peace, but at the same time we recognise that so long as men live in societies based on class opposition, in societies in which the modes of producing the material sustenance ..are monopolised by a class, so long will war be rife as a means of satisfying national disputes." (Socialist Standard, January 1905)

The Christmas season nowadays starts round about early November, just after we have finished celebrating the barbaric execution of Guy Fawkes and his co-conspirators. That’s about the time the seasonal ads start appearing on your TV set, reminding you that within seven weeks you will be obliged to empty what little hard-earned money you have in your savings account and to spend the same on presents, the recipients of which, in 999 out of 1000 cases, never really need.

Christmas is undoubtedly a secular festival these days, all religious claims to it having long been conceded to the master class who use it as a midwinter morale booster for their exhausted workers, and a money- spinner. And how the masses warm to the event, numbing the pain of their alienation in an orgy of over-spending, over-eating and over-drinking!

The truth is the whole dammed thing is an expensive ritual - a wallet-emptying convention devoid of any real and spontaneous show of affection - that many, if asked, would rather do without. Just look how embarrassed people feel upon receiving an unexpected card or gift and having none to give in return – a situation that reinforces one of the basic tenets of capitalism: ‘you get nowt for nowt’. How many people feel uncomfortable about writing out Christmas cards to send/give to people they think they are bound receive one from, people they are acquainted with only on a superficial level, fearing that such an unreciprocated act will signify meanness?

We do not mean to imply that humans are greedy and selfish and uncaring. Far from it! We are a socialists because we think exactly the opposite - that humans are innately good, that they work best when faced with the worst, that they will go to any lengths to alleviate the misery of others and that they have the ability to fashion a world in their own interests. But Christmas is all about giving on cue, about affection on demand, about a “season of goodwill to all men”. And we really do not think humans need to be reminded to give on cue, to have their affection synchronised to the Gregorian calendar, to show goodwill to all people. We have developed the advanced technological society we enjoy now exactly because we give and share and care without being asked to, or being reminded to, or having the open show of affection ritualised – indeed, our very survival as a species has always depended on it.

We believe capitalist society suppresses our emotions, stultifies just what it is to be really human and goes a long way to create a society of atomised individuals, pursuing their own selfish interests. In such an anti-human climate Christmas seems a bloody miracle!

Granted, kids love it – it’s all about magic, about a fat, unshaven, jolly geriatric in a red suit who, with his band of trustee, anal retentive, reindeer, can cover the earth’s surface area of 196,940,400 square miles within 12 hours whilst showering presents on the deserving. And, granted, the heartily religious love it – it’s a time for remembering when, 2,000 years ago, a 13 year old Palestinian lassie had a virgin birth, having been impregnated by a God (nowadays that gets you on the sex offenders register, as does entering the bedrooms of youngsters in a silly red disguise to leave presents).

But do we need Christmas? We can only conclude that until we have abolished capitalists from the earth and gods from the skies the answer has to be yes. If it was not Christmas, then another event which necessitates the suspending of the normal functioning of the rat-race, demanding the proverbial letting down of one’s hair and the partaking in an orgy of consumption, would take its place. It’s sad, but the exploited masses just need that fix. Religion has sod all to do with it. Indeed, the majority of people in Britain have no time for god myths. The Guardian today leads with the headline: “Religion does more harm than good.” The paper reports on the findings of a poll that suggests 82% of the population see religion as being a cause of division and tension. It also revels that two-thirds of the population in Britain have no relgious belief, and that only 13% attend relgious services on a weekly basis.

Where now the case that Christmas is all about the celebaration of the Christ child?

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Some Speakers Notes from 1950 to 1952 have been found at our Head Office. As the quotes below from the Notes show, capitalism and capitalist politics haven't changed much in the past fifty or so years.

"Reuter's correspondence reported from Georgetown, British Guiana:'Coloured dockers were on strike tonight against the employment of two menthey describe as 'whitelegs'." (News Chronicle, 21 Sept, 1950).

"Seventy-one-year old Miss Florence Harry-Jones has been elected presidentof Chingford (Essex) Young Conservatives" (Evening Standard, October 20,1950).

"A year's supply of potatoes for 12 million people -- 26,700,000 bushels-- has been destroyed by the US Deptartment of Agriculture this year,because it could not sell them abroad. The potatoes were bought to protectfarmers against losses. - Reuter" (News Chronicle, 24 Nov, 1950).

"The US Army has announced 'New unconventional methods' to speed uptraining. A division can now be ready for action in nine months instead of15. Said General Mark Clark: 'We'll make them ruthless, rugged killers."(Daily Express, 7th August, 1950).

"Mr. Jim Hammond, Communist president of the Lancashire miners, told aCommunist Party meeting at Bolton yesterday: 'I don't want one Italian working down a British mine. I regard their entry into British mines as a form of escape from paying the wages which will attract British miners'."(Daily Express, 28th February, 1952).

Saturday, December 16, 2006

We all know that the Iraq war, and the invasion of Afghanistan before that, was started because the US wanted to control Middle East and Caspian oilfields and to this end sought to replace an unfriendly government in Iraq by a puppet regime favourable to them. We can all recall the lies put out to try to disguise this (and to try to get round the UN Charter): self-defence because Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction. This turned out not to be true. Then they said Saddam was linked to Al Qaeda and since then Bush has denied all knowledge of ever making the claim, even though it is well documented. Then they said the occupation was all about establishing democracy in Iraq. Well, they did manage to organise some sort of elections and a sort of government emerged - which now hides 24/7 within the US fortified Green Zone - but in doing so they have plunged the country into civil war.

Now they are really worried: the predictable (and predicted) instability they have introduced into the region is itself turning out to be a threat to the security of oil supplies. So now they are talking of suing for peace with Iran and Syria, once labelled part of an 'Axis of Evil'.

Then there is Saudi Arabia, probably the most reactionary regime in the world and certainly the financer of a fundamentalist form of Islam that had never existed or had died out in the rest of the Muslim world. No talk of introducing democracy there. Just the opposite, in fact! All public criticism of the regime there by leading British politicians is banned. Blair has even just announced that it is in "the wider public interest" to drop a prosecution of the merchant-of-death company, BAE, for corruption to get a big weapons contract to arm the crooked and hypocritical princes who rule there and who live off the oil rents without having to lift a finger. Saudi Arabia, he said in justification, is Britain's main ally in the area.

Now we can see that spreading democracy in the Middle East was just a lie too -- though, to tell the truth, we knew that from the start. It was all about oil, the routes to get it to the West and strategic points to protect the oilfields and trade routes from rising economic competitors such as China and India

When Labour came to power in 1997, their then foreign secretary Robin Cook made much of his claim for Britain’s new “ethical foreign policy”. Yet within 18 months, Britain had dropped more bombs on foreign workers than the Tories had done in the previous 18 years. Since then new Labour has surpassed every preceding Labour government in its bolstering of and use of the state war machine and indeed in its promotion of the British arms trade. Just to refresh your memory, here is Cook on 12th may 1997:

“Our foreign policy must have an ethical dimension and must support the demands of other peoples for the democratic rights on which we insist on ourselves.”

That statement was utter rubbish. Labour in office have proved themselves to be as much the merchants of war as any other mainstream political party, while pedalling their noxious wares to anyone prepared to buy them.

Go back in time. On 25th January 1966, Dennis Healey said in the House of Commons: “While the government attaches the highest importance to making progress in the field of arms control and disarmament, we must also take what practical steps we can to ensure that thiscountry does not fail to secure its rightful share of this valuable commercial marker.”

Labour’s next step in 1966? To set up the Defence Sales Organisation!

Forty years later and little has changed. Only now a Labour government subverts the law to protect corrupt arms manufacturers and, worse, with the altruistric claim that it is in our interests.

Those not suffering from historical amnesia may well recall Blair’s words in September 1999. Speaking of the government’s Defence Export Sales Organisation, which was then bidding for ?3 billion worth of contracts, he described the DESO as “a force for good in the world.” That same year, the government was spending ?226 million per year promoting arms sales abroad, and only ?2 million per year on its Defence Diversification Agency (set up to look at converting military production to civilian projects).

The latest government scandal will help prove that Labour’s emblem should not be a rose – it should be a hand grenade. Where there’s profits to be had in promoting war, then regardless of the cost of life and the misery caused, you can guarantee Labour will pursue those profits no end.

Thursday, December 14, 2006

Did you hear the Victoria Derbyshire show (hosted right now by Matt Bannister, as Vic is on maternity leave) on BBC Radio 5 Live the other day? The discussion centred on prostitution due to the horrific events happening in Ipswich.

Some Emailers and callers nigh on busted their spleens in order to say the most hateful and nasty things about "working girls." (That term is revolting itself.) The hookers were dehumanised. The odd fruit claimed they deserved killing.

Is it too far of a leap to say it only needs a deep psychosis before that hatred and dehumanisation of badly positioned women (poor, sexually abused histories, drug addicts) leads to a killing spree, to "Jolly Jack" reborn?

Prostitutes don't do this for fun. Those that scream disgusting noise ought to think why girls sell , are forced in fact, to sell sex for cash.

Those people who wrote and called on 5 Live should hang their heads in shame.

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Yet another Honderich howler! You will recall the Professor stating that the Palestinians have a moral right to terrorism. Well, having shown him the magnitude of his mistake on this issue he has since chosen to berate those who do not give money to Oxfam or the Red Cross.

But, If you are expecting to read a detailed explanation of Honderich's position do not bother clicking on that link: the vast majority of the interview simply reveals the Professor's prejudices and torpid thinking.

Focusing, therefore, on the brief statement:"for Ted Honderich, if you do not give money to Oxfam or the Red Cross, you are killing Africans as surely as you had deliberately stopped a food convoy reaching a refugee camp," where does he err? Another philosopher, Mary Midgley.better known these days for taking Darwin's latter-day bulldog Richard Dawkins to task, could teach Ted a thing or two:

"Historians in the future, if there are any, will of course study our age as we study ages already past, seeing what we ought to have done, and wondering how we came to make the mistakes that we do. As usual, they will find it hard to understand how we missed the clues which will be plain to them - clues which undoubtedly are already staring us in the face. So far this story is a common one - a normal historical predicament."

Taking then a historical perspective, what can be said of charities such as Oxfam? Well, they have been campaigning since 1942, first as the Oxford Committee for Famine Relief, and today are one of the hundreds of thousands of charities in the UK alone. Since then Oxfam has been busy trying to raise funds to combat 'problems' such as hunger, disease, exploitation and poverty. They state that "poverty is avoidable" and that their "purpose is to overcome its causes, not simply to alleviate its symptoms" Socialists would not dispute that a small minority worldwide, even in the very 'poorest' countries, do very well for themselves avoiding poverty. We also think it vital to correctly identify cause rather than symptom, and argue that only when the vast majority act to end the system which deprives us of the fruits of our labour, will poverty give place to comfort, (privilege to equality and slavery to freedom: see our Object and Declaration of Principles.

Oxfam's misdiagnosis means that it has failed miserably to deal with these 'problems' for the past sixty-four years. This is also true of the myriad of other well-intentioned charitable campaigns. Consider, for example, the Child Poverty Action Group. When it was first formed, its members were so certain that the problem would be solved within the year that they did not open a bank account. That was in 1965...Later, upon 'celebrating' its 21st anniversary, the group released statistics showing that the number of people dependent on Supplementary Benefit had doubled and that a third of the child population lived at or below the poverty line.

Over one hundred years ago Oscar Wilde made this pertinent observation regarding charities:

[T]heir remedies do not cure the disease; they merely prolong it. Indeed, their remedies are part of the disease. They try to solve the problem of poverty, for instance, by keeping the poor alive; or, in the case of a very advanced school, by amusing the poor. But this is not a solution: it is an aggravation of the difficulty. The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible” (The Soul of Man under Socialism).

Charities through their assorted campaigns foster the dangerous illusion that, either through increased donations or political pressure on governments, the 'problems' which plague so many of us can be solved within capitalism itself. But, history shows otherwise. Indeed, with regard to starvation, Honderich needs to learn that "..as in every “food crisis” since the Great Starvation in Ireland in the 1840s, the workings of capitalism have produced the obscene spectacle of the export of food from an area where people are starving because, not having money, they don’t constitute a market and so don’t count" Read on here.

Friday, December 08, 2006

As a political organization we are used to receiving email canvassing our support for some urgent campaign or other.

Here is one that arrived today apparently from Brazil:

The Brazilian congress is now voting on a project that will reduce the Amazon forest to 50% of its size....The area to be deforested is 4 times the size of Portugal and would be mainly used for agriculture and pastures for livestock. All the wood is to be sold to international markets in the form of wood chips, by large multinational companies.

A very serious state of affairs no doubt – if it were true. But as far as we can gather the project complained of was terminated by the Brazilian government in May 2000.

The truth is that the soil in the Amazon forest is useless without the forest itself. Its quality is very acidic and the region is prone to constant floods. At this time more than 160,000 square kilometres deforested with the same purpose are abandoned and in the process of becoming deserts, meaning that this proposal is in the short-term interests of a few, and in the long term interests of none.

Having identified one result of capitalisms insatiable pursuit of profit we could have understood appeals to write to MPs, suggestions that we boycott this or that, request that we join some demo or other. But what are we in fact asked to do?

Please copy the text into a ‘new e-mail’ put your complete name in the list below, and send to everyone you know.

Now this message must rank pretty near the top in the list of 100 Futile Things you can do to Save the Planet.

Want to change the world? No need for political action -- just email your friends.

Wednesday, December 06, 2006

Capitalism is a social system in which the things that are needed to make and distribute the things we all need in order to live (food, clothing, shelter etc) are owned and controlled by a small minority of the world’s population. They are on the inside.

The richest 1% of adults in the world own 40% of the planet's wealth, according to the largest study yet of wealth distribution according to The Guardian [6th December].

The vast majority of us own very littlle—half the world's adult population own barely 1% of global wealth according to this report—and as a consequence we have to seek out an employer and work for the wage or salary they pay us.

Apart from charity, begging and theft this is our only means of access to the wealth that is produced socially. We are on the outside.

This is our situation whether our wages or salaries are high or low. We all have to sell our ability to work for the best price we can get. And we cannot do this without selling our body of course and we are therefore in the same situation as the street prostitute.

But as Socialists we don’t plead for this situation to be eased. We don’t campaign for adjustments (small or large) to the way things currently are. We don’t bleat that this situation is “unfair”.

We do not make moralistic appeals that the system that robs us be run a little less brutally. The motive behind most such reforms is to make the system of exploitation a little more effective in its robbery.

The approach of the Socialist Party is to appeal to the material interests of the non-owning majority. There are so many more of us. We produce and distribute all the wealth of the world. We run the system from top to bottom.

Running it for our own benefit and not for the benefit of a privileged minority is long overdue.

Friday, December 01, 2006

Since 1997, the Labour government has passed over 120,000 pages of legislation. ‘Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime,’ has become a favourite Blairite battlecry

The vast bulk of this legislation comes via the Home Office, which has fashioned a total of 59 bills since 1997. Not content with the fact that 10 years in office has led Labour to introduce over 3,000 new offences, The recent Queen’s Speech informed us that the Home Office believes there is not enough legislation. Five more bills were announced.

Where the hell is all of this leading?

The answer comes from this morning’s Guardian. At the moment British prisons are full like never before – the highest in Europe in fact – 80,000 this week and rising! Some 8,000 new prison places are needed we are told. Will the Chancellor, Gordon Brown, cough up the requisite sum needed to incarcerate these scallywags? Not on your nelly! He obstinately refuses.

To the rescue comes the Home Office with a brilliant idea. ‘Let’s offer the public shares in prisons’, they say. ‘Get the public to invest in a company that can build jails and then rent them out!’

‘One incentive for small investors is that the government's punitive penal policy has seen prison numbers rise relentlessly over the past 10 years and would appear to guarantee a steady stream of rental income with no apparent shortage of prison "tenants".’

Thursday, November 30, 2006

This piece, published on the ICH website, is well worth reading, though Ahmadinejad is living in cloud cuckoo land if he thinks it will be widely published by the US media.

This had the makings of a good letter - it contain a lot of truths - but spoiled by the silly references to a mythical being. Isn't it just damned nauseating the way the world's leaders, not content with pulling the wool over our eyes at every opportunity, continue toveil themselves in religious piety in a further attempt to get our attention?

Meanwhile, this letter will be ignored by Bush. Why? Because whatever Bush is doing in the Middle East we are reminded by Dubya himself that God told him to do it. On 7th October 2005, The Independent reported (as did the BBC) a conversation Bush had had with former Palestinian foreign minister Nabil Shaath and Mahmoud Abbas, former prime minister and now Palestinian President. Bush told them:

"I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George go and end the tyranny in Iraq,' and I did. Now again", I feel God's words coming to me: 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East.' And by God, I'm gonna do it."

Indeed, in his ever pathetic attempts to win the hearts and minds of god-fearing Americans, Bush pulls the religious card out at every opportunity. Consider:

"I BELIEVE that God wants me to be president."

So convincing was this that Bush won the support of his top military brass:

"Why is this man in the White House? The majority of Americans did not vote for him. Why is he there? And I tell you this morning that he's in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this" (Lt Gen William Boykin, speaking of G. W. Bush, New York Times, 17 October 2003).

How history repeats itself:

"I would like to thank Providence and the Almighty for choosing me of all people to be allowed to wage this battle for Germany." (Hitler - Berlin March, 1936).

And just like Bush, Hitler too had his military top brass propagating the view that leaders are god-given:

"God gave the savior to the German people. We have faith, deep and unshakeable faith, that he was sent to us by God to save Germany." (Hermann Goering).

Undoubtedly Ahmadinejad, like ourselves, recognises that many workers are sincere in their beliefs; that they are quite decent men and women who genuinely believe in the teachings of the various religions; that they do not do so for any material gain. Socialists do not take the view that such people are silly, idiotic or mentally deranged as many ‘rationalists’ do. It would be foolish to imagine that people who produce and distribute all the wealth of the world are imbeciles. But how do we explain the apparent contradiction of intelligent people, who behave in a sensible fashion in their real and everyday lives, but believe that the world is subject to supernatural forces, that certain events and phenomena are the will of a god? It would be a strange worker who blamed the malfunction of a computer on the acts of demons, or sought an exorcism on his electric calculator or mobile phone. In their everyday working lives, people base their actions on a materialist view. It is only when dealing with conflicts, that they see as being between good and evil, that they have recourse to religious and superstitious and unscientific ideas. At the weekend in church, synagogue or mosque, they profess all sorts of peculiar notions, but Monday to Friday in the workplace, they are as materialist as any member of the Socialist Party, often holding strong views on workers’ rights and conditions.

We live in a harsh, competitive society where everyone’s hand is turned against everyone else. Yet human beings crave social identity and companionship. The appeal of religion in modern day society is that it offers at least the consolation of a future state of peace and harmony. It stresses brotherhood and social cohesion. The harsher the reality, the more fantastic the solace offered by religion. It is no accident that early Christianity spread amongst the slaves of the Roman Empire, nor that in India and indeed throughout Asia, where poverty is so harsh, we have the devout religious zealots. In modern society, the emphasis on social stature is put on possessions. Everything has a price. Religion and its professed rejection of the material benefits of ownership stress a desire deep in the human character for something more worthwhile than mere property ownership. In actual practice, the religious bodies that stress the importance of something beyond mere ownership are often the most money-grabbing organisations in the world today. But their appeal lies in the rejection of the values of the society that they all support.

No matter how different the various religions may be, they all have a common basis – the suspension of logic. The history of religion is one of retreat. In primitive society, it claimed to be able to placate the mountain god or the river god. Such claims were made foolish by humanity’s growing knowledge of geology and meteorology. In medieval times they believed in ‘the divine rights of kings’ and such nonsense. These ideas were thrown out by the growth of the new ruling class. Today, religions no longer claim to control the material world. It has retreated into the social sciences. Its last bastions are the categories of good and evil. It blames all the social problems on the imperfectability of human kind. It can do this because the present ruling class can not allow the unrestricted scientific investigation of the cause of poverty, war and other social problems.

From a socialist viewpoint, it is not a case of God creating man, but of Man creating God. And what a variety of gods they have created! That ideas are a product of real, social circumstances, as socialists have always maintained, is nowhere better illustrated than in religion. Take the various notions about heaven. In the upper stages of savagery, the American Plains Indians lived by hunting. So their concept of an after-life was ‘The Happy Hunting Ground’ – a world where the game was plentiful. The Viking’s concept of an after-life was Valhalla, a sort of never-ending Bacchanalian feast, where food and drink were to be had in abundance. Contrast that with the modern Christian notion of heaven. Marble halls, Heavenly Gate and the guardian St. Peter, like a social security clerk, totalling up your good deeds stamps and seeing whether you qualify for any benefit!

As socialists we reject religion, recognising that between religion and socialism there can be no compromise. They are two fundamentally opposed views of the world. The religious view sees workers as incapable of solving the problems that confront them - something leaders zoom in on in an atemt to win their sympathy. The consolation offered by its believers is beyond the grave. They believe that human beings should adopt a slavish attitude…be humble…be grateful…and not attempt to abolish the ills that afflict them.

The socialist view is the exact opposite. We view the human being as a superb animal that has adapted the natural world to meet its needs. We view with wonder and astonishment the many magnificent accomplishments of men and women in the field of science, medicine, agriculture and advanced modern technology.

Socialists place their faith not in gods and supernatural forces, but in the intelligence and knowledge of the working class. The transformation of society will not be brought about by the action of gods, but by real men and women determined to end capitalism and establish socialism and, so doing, to fashion a world in their own interests. The hope for humanity’s future does not lie in the reformation of the human character as proposed by religion. We do not expect people to become saints. Socialism means an end of social conflict. This can only come about by the conscious political action of men and women who are convinced of the need for socialism.

The reformist bandwagon, going nowhere fast, has passed through the town of Pagosa Springs, Colorado (western North America).

Some residents are angry at one local for having the temerity to display a symbol associated with peace (although the term piecemeal would be more accurate), hippies and, quite possibly, devil worship! No doubt the fact that this festive-looking wreath has led to a march and the birth of a monster peace sign has left conservative types frothing at the mouth and worried by such a growing 'threat' to the status quo.

Need the establishment types be worried? No, not at all, although we are told that the "..peace symbol came to prominence in the late 1950s as the logo for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, a British antiwar group, according to the group’s Web site."

CND does not stand for peace but non-nuclear conflict, hence their less well known name, CCW -the Campaign for Conventional Warfare. Indeed, the group's latest campaign is for a debate to be held before the Trident nuclear weapons system is replaced: "Time and again, the ministers responsible have promised that a full debate and vote will take place." And Socialists have time and again pointed out the futility of such campaigning in the global capitalist system where war is endemic.

CND has a very short memory, one example of which is that less than ten years ago the group was organising protests against the introduction of Trident. The Socialkist Party responded in an article entitled: Reply to CND

Socialists, further, remember the birth of CND and leafleted the now famous Aldermaston march of 1958:

"This demonstration is evidence of the strong feeling throughout the country. We share your revulsion that the threat of nuclear weapons has aroused against the Hydrogen Bomb and are fully aware of its devastating consequences. But we disagree with the nature of your protest, which we hold is basically unsound and can only prove ineffective.

Mere emotion, however passionately directed against the horror of war, does not prevent war. Effective protest and action demands both an understanding of the cause of war and a practical idea of how war can be prevented.

The cause of war today is the capitalist organisation of society, a society based on the private ownership of the means of life and on production of goods and services to make a profit. Capitalism creates ruling groups who constantly struggle with each other for control of the wealth of the world. Governments represent the interest of these ruling groups. Their conflicts are economic ones: the competition for markets, the race for sources of strategic positions.

Russia, with its state-controlled capitalism, is no less involved in this sordid business than are the U.S.A. and Great Britain.

Governments cannot be moved to disarm by appeals to their humanity. History shows to the contrary that governments always prepare for war, that the horrific consequences of war do not minimise the likelihood of war, and that "agreements " between governments are no guarantee of peace.

Effective protest against nuclear weapons demands protest against the whole monstrosity of war. The abolition of war can only be effected by the reorganisation of human society.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain in its pamphlet on war states: "War can solve no working class problem. It cuts across the fundamental identity of interest of the workers of the world, setting sections of this class at enmity with each other in the interests of sections of the capitalist class.

"War elevates force into the position of arbiter in place of the common human desire for mutual peace and happiness. Its effect is wholly evil. It depraves all the participants by forcing them to concentrate upon the best methods of producing misery and of annihilating each other.

"War elevates lying, cheating, disabling and murdering opponents into virtues, confers distinctions upon those who practise these means most successfully.

"Young men and women, in their most impressionable years, have the vile methods of warfare impressed upon them so thoroughly that they lose a balanced outlook on life and are impregnated with the idea that force, with all its baseness, and not reason, is the final solution to all problems.

"Socialism is completely opposed to war and what war represents. At the same time it is the only solution to the conditions that breed war. It is a new form of society in which the people of the world will work harmoniously together for their mutual benefit, for there will be neither privilege nor property to cause enmity.

"No coercion will be needed in Socialism because each will gain from co-operating harmoniously with its fellows. But it is a new social system that demands understanding of its implications from those who seek to establish it.

"With the establishment of Socialism war will disappear and humanity will have taken the first step out of the jungle."

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

A derisive report by MEPs has attacked Britain’s role in torture flights and shown the Labour Party top brass up for the lying reprobates socialists have always claimed they were. The report states that European governments, including the British, knew all along about the CIA practice – known as extraordinary rendition – of flying ‘terror’ suspects to countries where there was a high probability they would be tortured.

Not only is the report highly critical of Geoff Hoon, minister for Europe, it further lambasts the chief legal adviser to the Foreign Office, Sir Michael Wood, for holding the view that receiving or possessing information extracted from torture was not forbidden by international law if there was no direct participation in the torture.

The report further focused on UK residents who had been seized in The Gambia, handed over to US agents and flown to Guantanamo Bay, and to Martin Mubanga, a UK citizen, also flown to Guantanamo Bay in 2002, where he was tortured for 4 years before being released without charge (or trial).

The report referred to 170 CIA rendition flights that had stopped over at British airports, bound for countries known for their appalling humans rights abuses.

No doubt the wily Blair will wriggle free from this mess and, come the next election, selective-amnesiacs will have forgotten all of this and voted in their millions for the Labour Party’s new clown prince – Gordon Brown. Neither will they recall that it was Blair who once referred to Guantanamo Bay as”an anomaly.”

Charles Kennedy (then Liberal Democrat leader): "The United States Secretary of State said yesterday that "extraordinary rendition" had been conducted in co-operation with European Governments. To what extent, therefore, have the Government co-operated in the transport of terrorist suspects to Afghanistan and elsewhere, apparently for torture purposes?"

Prime Minister Tony Blair: "First, let me draw a very clear distinction indeed between the idea of suspects being taken from one country to another and any sense whatever that ourselves, the United States or anyone condones the use of torture. Torture cannot be justified in any set of circumstances at all. The practice of rendition as described by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been American policy for many years. We have not had such a situation here, but that has been American policy for many, many years. However, it must be applied in accordance with international conventions, and I accept entirely Secretary of State Rice's assurance that it has been."

Mr Kennedy: "Given that assurance, can the Prime Minister therefore explain why the published evidence shows that almost 400 flights have passed through 18 British airports in the period of concern? When was he as Prime Minister first made aware of that policy, and when did he approve it?"

Mr Blair: In respect of airports, I do not know what the right honourable gentleman is referring to

Charles Kennedy: "Last week, the Prime Minister acknowledged that he had been aware of the United States' policy of rendition for quite some time. If terrorist suspects are not being transported to a third country for the purposes of torture or mistreatment, will he explain to the House for what purpose they are being transported?"

Tony Blair: "First, let me again make it clear to the right honourable gentleman that this government are completely and totally opposed to torture or ill-treatment in any set of circumstances. Our country is a signatory to the United Nations convention against the use of torture, and we will continue to uphold its provisions absolutely.

Question: "Prime Minister, speaking of European leaders who have expressed ignorance of the American practice of shipping prisoners back and forth through airports in Britain and Europe to countries that may practise torture, Colin Powell said this week: 'Most of our European friends cannot be shocked that this kind of thing takes place. The fact is that we have over the years had in place procedures that would deal with people who are responsible for terrorist activities, and so the thing that is called rendition is not something that is new or unknown to my European friends.' Now that you know, do you approve it or will you stop it?"

Mr Blair: "Well it all depends on what you mean by rendition. If it is something that is unlawful I totally disapprove of it; if it is lawful, I don't disapprove of it…. all I know is that we should keep within the law at all times, and the notion that I, or the Americans, or anybody else approve or condone torture, or ill treatment, or degrading treatment, that is completely and totally out of order in any set of circumstances.

In capitalist politics there are lies, damned lies and then Labour Party leaders.

Just for the record:

“No State Party shall expel, return or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.’From Article 3 of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT). Britain and the USA are both signatories.

The Cuban dictator Fidel Castro has yet to make a public appearance at the five days-long celebration marking his 80th birthday. Socialism endures. These two sentences are factually correct but otherwise completely unrelated. The myth-making media and many on the Left would no doubt disagree. The latter are certainly relieved to learn that "Cuba won't abandon socialism just yet". This is the title of a recent article, written by one Paolo Spadoni - a professor of political science no less, so his views must be respected! - in 'The Christian Science Monitor' (sic).

What utter nonsense! Truly this amounts to another abortion of Socialist Understanding. See also this.

What then is the Socialist position? Time for a brief history lesson In 1938 the Cuban 'Communist' Party openly supported General Batista and twenty years later effectively broke the general strike called by Castro. This may sound strange but Castro's forces were aligned on anti-Batista, pro-nationalist lines - they were not even pretending to be socialist! Castro clearly identified himself as an enemy of the working class. He failed to deliver on his promise of free elections within a year of ousting the previous dictator! Perhaps this was because he felt a need to consolidate his power, as the numerous silenced, exiled or imprisoned members of trade unions and other groups suggest. No opposition parties or newspapers survived the purge. Ironically, it was US aggression which led Cuba down the state capitalist path of development. This brought about the much praised rise in literacy and improved health care, but such developments are part and parcel of producing a modern working class equipped to handle advanced methods of production. However, in other areas, Castro was candid enough to admit, as in 1965, that the regime had not even begun to deal seriously with the housing problem. Indeed, six years later the workers were told to build their own in addition to their normal work! This was never actually a problem for Castro and the nomenklatura - such difficulties are never experienced by the capitalist class. Tellingly, the existence of profits, interest, wages (all hallmarks of capitalism) in the early 80's, when links with the so-called Communist bloc were strong, is revealed by Peter Marshall in his Cuba Libre: Breaking the Chains. (He also writes about the existence of thousands of political prisoners and appalling anti-gay prejudice as well as stating that strikes and the formation of free trade unions are illegal). Since the collapse of many former state capitalist trading partners, reports suggest that the quality of life for the working class in Cuba has declined; poverty & prostitution are rife alongside deteriorating health and schooling facilities. Change to another form of capitalism is possible and is apparently being considered, as ABC News International reports.

Also worth a look is this Newsdesk.org piece , which reports that the Cuban government has launched a study with a surprising focus: What is it about socialism that causes people to steal?

Yes, Socialism endures in spite of the likes of Castro, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin and all the other motley misleaders past and present!

One of the arguments against Socialism is the so-called "Economic Calculation Argument." The Socialist Party was subject to criticsm from the Libertarian Alliance in the 1970s and after on precisely the ECA. One particular critic of the SPGB, David Ramsay Steele (and author of "From Marx to Mises", was in fact a former member of the party.

The Libertarian critique of Socialism led the party to look into its conception of Socialism; the result was a refining of the socialist case as well as a refutation of the ECA.

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

It was interesting to hear Tony Blair telling British forces in Afghanistan that they were fighting for the future security of the 21st century. If the results of that US/UK led invasion of that country five years ago are anything to go by then the 21st Century looks set to be a miserable time to live through.

Five years after the invasion of Afghanistan the country is in ruins, the infrastructure in tatters, the Taliban, who Blair and Bush once informed us had been ousted, now as strong as ever and inflicting heavy casualties on UN forces. The cultivation of poppies, which Bush once told us had been halted, is now as strong as it has been in 20 years. Antonio Maria Costa (the UN anti-drug chief) said recently that this year's opium harvest will be a record 6,100 tons (enough to make 610 tons of heroin) or 92% of the total world supply and 30% more than the amount consumed across the world in one year. Way to go Bush and Blair!! Drug barons across the planet salute you!!

The burqa, once believed gone forever with the arrival of Western forces and the installation of a puppet regime, is being worn through sheer fear everywhere. So, congratulations Mrs Bush and Blair – another glorious foreign policy cock-up of gigantic proportions.

And let’s set the following fresh statistics against the 5 year Western occupation of Afghanistan:

Life expectancy in Afghanistan is 44.5 years – the lowest in the world.At 161 deaths per 1,000, infant mortality is the highest in the world.One in five children perish before the age of 5.Every day 50 women die in childbirth.45% of those seeking work are unemployed.

50 % of the working population earn a miserly $200 a year. Those involved in the heroin trade – the country’s number one industry – fare a little better and receive an average $300 a year.Only 25% of Afghans have access to clean water and adequate sanitation.25% of the population depends on food aid.500,000 are either homeless, living in appalling conditions or do-it-yourself dwellings.

There is one doctor for every 6,000 people.Fewer than 6% of Afghans have access to electricity, and at irregular intervals.Over 100 are killed or wounded each month by mines.

It is reported that children are being kidnapped and sold into slavery or killed for their organs. Tens of thousands of woman have turned to prostitution in order to survive.

Neither have US public relations helped matters. As in Abu Ghraib in Iraq, so too have there been numerous accounts of the torture of detainees in Afghanistan's US controled detention centres. Moreover, US troops have openly ridiculed the dominant religion there. In late October, US troops were captured on film burning the bodies of dead Taliban fighters in the village of Gonbaz - forbidden under Islamic law.

The corpses burnt, U.S. psychological operations specialists, in an attempt to lure Taliban followers, used loudspeakers to goad local villagers: "Attention, Taliban, you are all cowardly dogs. You allowed your fighters to be laid down facing west and burned. You are too scared to come down and retrieve their bodies. This just proves you are the lady boys we always believed you to be...You attack and run away like women. You call yourself Talibs, but you are a disgrace to the Muslim religion, and you bring shame upon your family. Come and fight like men instead of the cowardly dogs you are."

Just the way to go on when you’re trying to win the hearts and minds of the people. Operation Eduring Freedom turns into Operation Who Fancies Their Chances?

In Bleeding Afghanistan: Washington, Warlords, and the Propaganda of Silence (Seven Stories, 2006) by Sonali Kolhatkar and James Ingalls, the authors argue that the continuing plunge into brutality is directly related to US policies over the past 5 years. The US would not allow the UN to stabilise the country outside of Kabul and allowed the Northtern Alliance and other war mongers to take control and to continue their violent suppression of the population. This, along with a hated US policy for the country, has turned people to support the Taliban.

The authors write:

“As warlords have carved out chunks of Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban, the lawlessness that gave rise to the strict Islamic movement in the mid-1990’s has begun to spread, once again, across this country. The United States-led military campaign… has returned to power nearly all of the same warlords who had misruled the country in the days before the Taliban.

“…One thing is certain: having warlord armies as the only non-U.S. forces in the bulk of Afghanistan ensures little international accountability for U.S. troop operations in the countryside. ISAF [the United Nations established International Security Assistance Force] expansion would have interfered with the U.S. hunt for al-Qa’eda and bin Laden. According to Al Ahram Weekly columnist Fahmi Howeidi, the ‘primary function of [ISAF] is to divert attention away from the military operations being conducted by U.S. forces in the Afghan countryside. In fact, as much as the hands of the international force are tied in Kabul, the Americans have a free hand elsewhere.’ The absence of peacekeeping troops, deliberately maintained by the Bush administration, ensured that the United States, rather than an international body, had control over most of Afghanistan.

“The official U.S. policy on Afghanistan’s security, according to Rumsfeld, was ‘helping [Afghans] develop a national army so that they can look out for themselves over time.’ Since developing a national army and police force in a country flush with weapons and decimated by war is a time- and money-consuming effort, Rumsfeld privately ‘wondered why they couldn’t just let the Afghan warlords create an army.’ In some areas of the country, this is indeed what has happened. While the national army is still in its infancy, local and regional warlords, many of whose private militias are well funded by drug revenues, easily filled the military vacuum left by the Taliban, but this didn’t

It now seems that the US is reaping the bitter harvest of its foreign policy which used Islamic fundamentalism as a puppet in its perennial game of globo-political profit-making. For years it courted some of the most dangerous, conservative and fanatical followers of Islam and is now paying the price. The globalisation process, which the US has pursued obsessively, has only served to make political Islam more reactionary in defence of its own culture and strategic interests.

The Islamic zealots the US are prepared to annihilate, in Afghanistan were once afforded most favoured status during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Under the Carter administration and beginning in 1980, they were trained in their thousands (sources quote 20,000) at the CIA’s Camp Peary and at the ex-army base at Harvey Point in Carolina; by the Green Berets at Fort Bragg in North Carolina and indeed by the SAS in Scotland. They would go on to be trained at Fort A.P. Hill, just off the Washington-Richmond interstate highway, and at Camp Picket in Virginia by Green Berets and US Navy SEALS. This was not simply ‘basic’ training. They were trained in over 60 deadly skills, including the use of sophisticated fuses, timers and explosives, remote control devices for land mines, incendiary devices and the use of automatic weapons with armour piercing shells. Thus the US went about supporting a ten-year long jihad in the hope Soviet state capitalism would not encroach upon its central Asian markets and that the military cost of the operation would cripple the Soviet economy.

Blair’s comments on securing the 21st Century beg the question “on whose behalf?” Would Western forces really be there if the smell of oil was not in the air? The oil reserves of Central Asia ($12 trillion worth by some estimates) are large enough to attract any oil-crazed president and his lackeys and as Afghanistan is geographically located between the Caspian basin and the markets of China and the Indian sub-continent, we can well see the country’s strategic importance to foreign policy planners wishing to dictate the way in which the region’s oil and gas reserves are utilised to the benefit of the US dollar.

To be sure, Afghanistan is not the first war of the 21st Century as Bush claimed back in 2001, but just one battle in a larger war that began in 1945 with the US determined to control the world’s resources, and there is more than ample evidence to prove this. More importantly, though, the entire Afghanistan/Iraq episode serves to show the insanity of the system we live in, and the desperate need to wrest control of our planet away from the madmen before it is indeed too late.In the 20th century, some 220 million lost their lives in wars, in conflicts over trade routes, areas of influence, foreign markets, mineral wealth and the strategic points from which the same can be defended or in other words, in the name of profit.

As socialists, as observers of international affairs and commentators on the way they impinge upon the lives of our fellow workers, we are well attuned to the machinations of the elites of powerful countries as they seek to promote the interests of their corporate backers. Though it is no easy task for the uninitiated, we urge our fellow workers to be as vigilant as ever. To believe the arguments of the likes of Bush and Blair is to disarm yourself intellectually - for it is at times like the present, when the media is dancing to the tunes of governments, when the trumpets of jingoism, patriotism and reaction are sounding, that we need to be fighting the war of ideas with a little more gusto.

The solution to the ongoing insanity, we insist, remains the same. There is one world and we exist as one people in need of each other and with the same basic needs. There is far more that unites us than can ever divide us along cultural, nationalistic or religious lines. Together we can create a civilisation worth living in, but before that happens we need the conscious cooperation of ordinary people across the world, united in one common cause – to create a world in which each person has free access to the benefits of civilisation, a world without borders or frontiers, social classes or leaders and a world in which production is at last freed from the artificial constraints of profit and used for the good of humanity – socialism.

Sunday, November 19, 2006

Only those suffering from selective amnesia will not recall the nauseating lengths to which Tony Blair went in promoting the case for the invasion of Iraq, how he used 10-year-old information gleaned from the internet, and some student’ dissertation to boot, to argue that Saddam Hussein was quite capable of lobbing a missile at Britain within 45 minutes.

Prior to the US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, well over a million people took part in a mass protest in London - people fully aware at the time that the events of 9/11 had no link to Saddam Hussein (something George Bush promoted and later denied) and that he posed no military threat to the West. Likewise, the many who marched to Hyde Park that day were right in believing that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction—a fact that was proved within months—and that any war in Iraq would fully destabilise the country (ex-president George Bush Snr. in fact cautioned Dubya that invasion would lead to destabilisation). And you would have been in a minority had you not realised the link between the intended war and the fact that beneath the sands of Iraq lay huge oil resources.

Three years after the invasion, with 650,000 Iraqis dead, the country’s infrastructure in total tatters, the country racked by a civil-war that threatens the lives of hundreds of thousands more Iraqis, global terrorism far more of a reality than before the invasion, Blair has admitted that the whole damned episode is a ginormous cock-up.

However, rather than locating the problem in the invasion, the toppling of Saddam, the setting up of a stooge pro-Western government, Blair continued: "You see what I say to people is why is it difficult in Iraq? It's not difficult because of some accident in planning, it's difficult because there's a deliberate strategy - al Qaeda with Sunni insurgents on one hand, Iranian-backed elements with Shia militias on the other - to create a situation in which the will of the majority for peace is displaced by the will of the minority for war."

And who trained Al-Qaeda? British and US special forces, Mr Blair. And what has always been the will of the majority in Iraq, Mr Blair? That the Western occupying armies get the hell out of Iraq.

Notwithstanding the carnage engulfing Baghdad and British-controlled Basra, Blair maintained that British troops were not ready to cut and run.

"We are not walking away from Iraq," he said. "We will stay for as long as the government needs us to stay.” Or rather British and American forces will stay until the country’s oil wealth is secured for Western interests.

"And the reason for that is that what is happening in Iraq, as in Afghanistan, as elsewhere in parts of the Middle East, is a struggle between the decent majority of people, who want to live in peace together, and those who have an extreme and perverted and warped view of Islam, who want to create war.”

One wonders whether Blair gets his political weltanschauung from the same sources as his war-mongering counterpart across the pond. Nowhere do the politics of oil enter the equation – the real reason for the invasion.

Jut one day after the Frost interview and Blair was back-pedalling – for sure his telephone hotline buzzing all night with concerned messages from the jingoistic fraternity in Washington and the oil cartel at home – and his spokesman adamant that his apparent concession was a "straightforward slip of the tongue" – perhaps the kind is slip Mr Bush is so famous for! Blair’s spokesman continued: "He doesn't think that a democratically-elected government in Iraq is a disaster; he doesn't think that getting rid of Saddam was a disaster, but he does acknowledge there are difficulties, and he doesn't try to downplay those."

We wonder just what “difficulties” Mr Blair is thinking of. That in securing the ‘world’s richest prize’ people have to be killed and democratic elections – as in Iraq – have to be subverted. What, the elections were democratic, Mr Blair? Then why did all candidates first have to be cleared by the White House?

How can an election be construed as legitimate when it is carried out under foreign military occupation and when the country is apparently ruled by, and the election will be officially run by, a stooge government installed and kept in power by the army of occupation? Where the democracy in holding an election that is to be orchestrated from the US Embassy and which will be under the ultimate control of US forces? Where the democracy and freedom of expression when a raging civil war prevents large sections of the population casting a vote and when the election is so tailored as to bring into being a new assembly responsible for drafting a Washington–vetted constitution and selecting a government that will be allowed to exist only so long as it functions under the conditions of military occupation?

Toppling Saddam was not a disaster? The very reason Saddam was not toppled in the wake of the first Gulf War - when the US prompted northern Kurds and the southern Marsh Arabs to rebel against Baghdad, offering they would come to their aid, and then sat back as Saddam annihilated them – was exactly because it was recognised an unstable Iraq was not in US interests, that it was safer to keep Saddam in power. Saddam might have been an utter bastard, but as far as Washington was concerned in 1991 he was holding the country together. This is not to say that we, as socialists, believe Saddam should have been left in power, but it is instructive to point to glaring changes in US policy.

As socialists we do maintain that it is dangerous to listen to leaders of any party and from any country, regardless of their flower cant, and insist that anything they say is taken with a pinch of salt and that workers should organise against them and in their ilk and in our own interests. The concept of leadership has emerged with class society and will end when we abolish class society, when we abolish the profit system and all that goes with it. The master class have been allowed to lead because of their control over the means of living and by virtue of their control of the education system and their monopoly of the media and other information processes.

It doesn’t have to be this way. The greatest weapons we posses are our class unity, our intelligence, our ability to question every corrupt word that is uttered by politicians, and to imagine a world fashioned in our own interests. Leaders perceive all of this to be a threat and so will do anything to keep us in a state of oblivion, dejection and dependency – not least of these methods is to further lie to us at every opportunity. Our apathy is the victory they celebrate each day. Our unwillingness question everything they say, to unite as a globally exploited majority and to confront them on the battlefield of ideas is the subject of their champagne toasts.

When it comes to commenting on Iraq, on would have thought that Blair would have learnt his lesson and kept his ill-informed mouth shut. For over 3 years he has lied incessantly about Iraq. It is staggering that anyone in Britain still finds anything he says believable. Just to remind visitors to this blog of some of his untruths we’re listing a sample few of his Iraq-related porkies. If you think anything Blair says is trustworthy, consider the following:

Fact: After over three months of inspections, the UN weapons inspectors reported on 6 March that "No proscribed activities, or the result of such activities from the period of 1998-2002 have, so far, been detected through inspections”.

2) "There is no doubt about the chemical programme, the biological programme, indeed the nuclear weapons programme. All that is well documented by the United Nations." (Tony Blair, 30 May 2003)

Fact: The UN had found no evidence of any on-going programmes since the mid-1990s. Dr Hans Blix said on 23 May that "I am obviously very interested in the question of whether or not there were weapons of mass destruction and I am beginning to suspect there possibly were not."

Fact: Hans Blix told the Security Council on 7 March 2003 that "the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as 'active', or even 'proactive'".

Fact: In 1999, the Security Council set up a panel to assess the UN's achievements in the peaceful disarmament of Iraq. It concluded that: "Although important elements still have to be resolved, the bulk of Iraq's proscribed weapons programmes has been eliminated."

Fact: In early February, a classified British intelligence report, written by defence intelligence staff in mid-January and presented to Tony Blair just prior to his 21 January presentation at the Liaison Committee, stated that there were no current links between the two, and that Bin Laden's "aims are in ideological conflict with present day Iraq".

Fact: Resolution 1441 was secured on the British assurance that it did not authorise military action, even if the UK or US believed it was being violated by Iraq. Britain's UN ambassador Jeremy Greenstock informed the Security Council on 8 November 2002 that "There is no 'automaticity' in this Resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion".

Fact: President Chirac said that France would vote against any resolution that authorised force whilst inspections were still working. Chirac said that he "considers this evening that there are no grounds for waging war in order to ... disarm Iraq.

Fact: UN weapons inspectors were reporting Iraq's "proactive" cooperation, and were offering that Iraq could be confirmed as fully disarmed within three months if that assistance continued. If Mr Blair's aim was the elimination of prohibited weapons, why terminate the inspection process just when it was most effective?

Today, meanwhile, Gordon Brown is in Iraq and no doubt the trip will be used as a damage limitation exercise in the wake of Blair’s unwitting confession. Brown’s remit? To visit and placate British troops, who may have thought this was Blair saying they were going home, and to announce at least ?100 million in new aid for reconstruction. For what it’s worth, the figure is peanuts. On July 18th of this year US government's top auditor told Congress that the new Iraqi government would require at least $50 billion in aid just to rebuild the country's oil facilities and electrical grids to pre-invasion levels. Brown’s ?100 million would not cover the damage that is done to Iraq as a direct result of the ongoing civil war each week.

The threat of global warming is clearly a global problem that can only be dealt with by co-ordinated action at world level. But this is not going to happen under capitalism. As a system involving competition between profit-seeking corporations backed up by their protecting states, it is inherently incapable of world-wide cooperation. There never has been such cooperation. Just the opposite, in fact. The inevitable clashing interests between different states, each seeking to pursue the interests of its profit-seeking corporations, breeds war rather than cooperation. Look what happened last century. Look at the invasion of Iraq this century.

So it’s not going to happen. There is not going to be any coordinated world action to deal with global warming as long as capitalism is allowed to continue. Something will be done but it is bound to be too little, too late.

It’s certainly going to be too little. These days, when private corporations have governments under their thumb much more than in the recent past, what is being proposed is not even state intervention to force carbon-polluting corporations to limit their emissions in the overall capitalist interest. It’s to try to use the mechanisms of the market to solve the problem: fiddling about with the tax system to make investment in anti-pollution measures more profitable; establishing an artificial world market and price for carbon. Anybody can see that this is not going to work.

Governments are also proposing that individuals play their part, as if individuals rather than the system were to blame. They want us to drive smaller cars, even cycle to work, turn off the lights when we leave a room, not leave our TV on standby, not fly to our holiday destination. That’s all very well but unless they want us to reduce our standard of living that will just mean we would have money to spend on something else. As the capitalist class are always wanting us to reduce our standard of living since this means more for them as profits - and provoke strikes and impose austerity to try to do so - , socialists are naturally suspicious of the motives behind the government propaganda here.

In any event since the great bulk of carbon emissions come from energy generated for industry, offices and commercial transport, as well as from deforestation, even if we did all the things they want - and we’re not saying we shouldn’t, that’s an individual life-style choice - it wouldn’t make much difference. Changing life-styles is no more a solution to global warming than letting the invisible hand of the market have a go.

Having said this, individuals do have some responsibility in the matter. Capitalism - the cause of the problem - only continues in the end because people put up with it. Most people don’t see any alternative to working for wages, producing for profit, using money, the world divided into states, the existence of armies. These attitudes both reflect and sustain capitalism. And every time people get a chance to vote, a majority back politicians committed to maintaining the capitalist system as the way of organising the production and distribution of wealth. So capitalism continues. As do its problems, including the threat of global over-warming. Maybe as this gets nearer people will be driven to consider an alternative.

Global warming can only be tackled by global action. And effective global action will only be possible within the framework of a united world. A united world is only possible on the basis of the Earth’s natural and industrial resources being the common heritage of all humanity.

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Socialists never get tired of showing how China and Cuba and every other country claiming to be socialist - not forgetting the former Soviet Union - in fact adhere to a brand of capitalism known as state capitalism, that in all of these countries money is of more importance than human life.

A recent example of China's worship of the god Mammon comes in a report this week of a young boy named Xiong Hongwei and how he drank pesticide from a soft drinks bottle, became seriously ill and was rushed to hospital by his grandfather. Arriving at the hospital the grandfather only had 123 yuan on him (?8.00) so was sent home and told to get the requsite 639 yuan before treatment could be administered. Result? The boy died.

Two thousand people protested outside the hospital and clashed with riot police and the hospital was closed temporarily.

At one time the Chinese health sevice was free to all - in other words it was somewhat similar to the NHS - until the market-oriented economy kicked in. In 1979, before market reforms, the government shouldered 54% of healthcare costs. That figure has since dropped to 17%.

Medical insurance comes highly recommended in China, but in the countryside only 25% of the country's 80 million farmers can afford it. The rural collectives they belonged to and which spread health care costs among members, was abolished in the early 1980s. The result being that many simply can't afford healthcare, so get ill, can't work and fall deeper into poverty - a vicious cycle mirrored in many countries.

Meanwhile, China's government still claims to be communist. And, meanwhile, China's leaders still support the wages system and commodity production. They promote trade according to the dictates of international capital and are ever prepared to go to war to defend China's economic interests. Hmmmm...isn't this what the US and British and French and Italian capitalist government do?

Sunday, November 12, 2006

Socialists, other than agreeing on the urgent need for the establishment of a world of free access as a solution to most of today's 'problems', are a very mixed group with diverse tastes and interests. But given the number of high-profile celebrities joining the reformist misery-go-round, they might well be angry with Angelina, bored of Bono and mad with Madonna for further delaying effective treatment, i.e, addressing only the symptoms rather than the actual disease. Another celebrity has identified a rather different 'problem' and has called for religion to be banned. Elton John is quoted as saying "I think religion has always tried to turn hatred towards gay people. From my point of view, I would ban religion completely,"

Here Elton is singing a refreshingly different tune, but it is not one you will hear Socialists joining. This is not to say that Socialists are unsympathetic: indeed, if our numbers were larger, we too might be subject to the same scorn reserved for the homosexuals and lesbians who paraded in Jerusalem recently.Yes, in a rare show of unity fundamentalist christian, jewish and muslim fascists came out against the sodomities (their pejorative).

What then is the Socialist position? Well, in our Declaration of Principles which date from 1904, you can read the following:

That as in the order of social evolution the working class is the last class to achieve its freedom, the emancipation of the working class will involve the emancipation of all mankind, without distinction of race or sex.

The hate and distrust that exists in society today is a direct result of the nature of societies past and present. A society in which we must compete to survive, in which our jobs are threatened by other workers, in which we do not feel secure, is fertile breeding ground for racism, sexism, nationalism and all the other hatreds that abound.

Even today, while this hatred is sometimes used to pit one worker against another, it appears that overall, these hatreds are being rooted out and made socially unacceptable. This is particularly noticeable in countries like South Africa where there is a shortage of white workers, and black workers must be brought into previously "white" workplaces without the major disruption that is caused by overt racism.

No society can meet our human needs as long as there are different classes of people. Every person has abilities that differentiate them from others, but we are all equal in our humanity. We all have strengths and weaknesses. What we need is a society that allows us to use our strengths, and that accepts and accommodates our weaknesses.

Socialism will be a society geared to meeting human needs, and the need to be accepted for what we are is probably the most basic of human needs. When the breeding ground for these hatreds has disappeared, people will naturally be able to eradicate them with all the other negative leftovers of capitalism.

Clearly, Socialists are not homophobes. But, having endured physical attacks from fascists of the Left and Right we remain wholeheartedly in favour of the fullest freedom of speech. This is because we hold that out of full and free discussion of today's social problems only one valid conclusion can emerge: that Socialism alone will provide the framework within which they can be solved.

Socialists are Materialists and as such opposed to religion in all its forms. We agree with Marx that 'Religious suffering is at one and the same time the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the opposed creature, the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.' So, in the words of the radical poet P Bysshe Shelley:

Let us hasten than glorious dayWhen man on man no more shall preyWhen prophets priests and kingsAre numbered with forgotten things

According to Professor Ted Honderich of University College London the 'Palestinians have a moral right to terrorism' (The Independent, 2 November 2006). He goes on to explain that the "…Palestinians have a moral right in historic Palestine, including Israel, to their terrorism against that [Israel's] ethnic cleansing...Everybody believes the Palestinians have a right to a viable state..." Socialists do not make moral appeals, and have, since the Party's inception in 1904, opposed terrorism/wars: whenever have our 'problems' been solved by workers killing each other? And states?! Such ignorance!

Socialists do not go down that well-known leftist cul-de-sac of supporting oppressed and disadvantaged national minorities achieve statehood. We wonder if the Professor and others in favour of this position realise what a Sisyphean task they undertake? By way of illustration replace 'Jews' in the quotation below with any of the following:

* the indigenous peoples in North America, South America, and Australia;

"In one of his first articles after becoming a Socialist, Marx argued that Jewish people should seek emancipation, not as Jews, but as human beings. To do this they should abandon their religion - just as Christians should abandon theirs - and become members of a secular human community in which money and the state should be abolished, i.e. Socialism. In the meantime, under capitalism, Jews should enjoy the same political rights, in a secular democratic state, as Christians and others."For further info click here.

The Socialist Party has repeated this message many times, including on the emergence of the new Jewish State of Israel in Palestine (itself an 'artificial subdivision of the old Ottoman Empire'):

"Within the tormented area of the struggle Arab and Jewish workers have already given evidence of where the chains rub them by the strikes that have taken place against Jewish, Arab and alien masters. These Jewish and Arab workers form the vast mass of the population of the territories involved; they are the poverty-stricken exploitable material without which neither the Jewish nor Arab capitalists and landowners, nor outside capitalists, would be able to reap their harvest of profit from those rich areas. Industrially and commercially Jewish capitalists have been the progressive force. They have brought highly developed Western methods to a backward area, and in places have made the desert bloom. But with Western methods they have brought Western forms of wage-slavery and expanded under cover of nationalist ideals."For further informaton click here.

Then and now Arab and Jewish workers have more in common than with the capitalists who exploit them. The creation of a separate Palestinian state, viable or otherwise, will no more end this exploitation than, for example, when a new black master class took over the state at the end of the era of apartheid in South Africa.

Furthermore, as "...long as we have capitalism, that is, competition and contest between capitalists and capitalist states, buying and selling, land grabbing for profits and other gains, which leads to bullying, threatening, spying, open hostility, conflict, terrorism and open military war, we will never be free of violence and terrorism."

'Workers of the World, Unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains.'

Friday, November 10, 2006

Remembrance Sunday was created on November 7 1919 by King George V as a way for people to remember the sacrifices made by the Allied soldiers of the First World War. It is observed today (on the Sunday closest to November 11) to remember the fallen of other conflcits too.

The plastic poppy has its origins in the poppies made and advocated by Moina Michelle (1918)and Madame Anne Guerin (1920) - its symbolism stems from the poem "In Flanders Fields" by John McCrae. Poppies grew across the battlefields. The red is the blood spilt.

Cue Peter Snow, a newsreader, who refused to wear a poppy the other day and calls the whole tradition "poppy fascism." He has a point as kids are being forced to wear them and viewers' wrote a storm of complaints because he didn't have one on. (An aside - there is also the campaign for a white poppy, to symbolise peace and remembrance, rather than the red poppy.)

The socialist take on this lays in objection to that seemingly harmless word "sacrifices" from the first sentence of this post. The ruling class, the pulpits and the media argue that working class men and women have fought and died in wars in order to let us all enjoy what we have today. Presumably, that "sacrifice" was death for capitalist democracy. The Socialist Party argues that wars are not fought to protect democracy. Further, we argue the cause of wars is the capitalist system itself.

Remembrance of wars is not a pointless exercise. We need to remember why the horror started in the first place and that it is possible to banish the murder, misery and destruction of wars forever.

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

Socialists do not want to abolish the monarchy. Socialists are much more ambitious: we desire nothing less than a global classless commonwealth. Until that glorious day we will do our best to ignore the latest royal pantomime. You might think that those of us existing in republics such as Austria, Romania, Russia or South Korea might suffer less exposure but no, papers in these countries soon carried the 'news' that a worker on an English Channel ferry had failed to recognise one William Windsor! Unbelievable! And possibly something which might elicit a passing smile from even a veteran class warrior. There should be no doubt, however, that Socialists seek to replace pomp and privilege for the few with peace and plenty for all, as the following gems show...

"...The King as such is a nonentity, a dummy, a convenient cloak behind which the capitalist class carry on their operations of robbing the workers of the fruits of their toil. As a private individual, the landlord of vast estates, George Wettin may make himself feared, but no one trembles at his royal word, or quakes at the thunder of his anointed brow. If the great ones of the capitalist world bow and scrape before him, it is only because he is the incarnation of capitalism, the symbol of the domination of a class of parasites and thieves, the image of themselves triumphant. They know that while the workers will flock in millions to cheer this straw man of theirs, dragged through the streets like a fifth of November guy, they and their plunder are safe. Hence they set the example of deification, knowing well they will be followed by their sheep..."

No doubt this parasite was totally oblivious to the fact that one of the craftsmen who helped create the new coronation chair was F.C Watts, a founder member of the Socialist Party! Truly, the capitalist class reigns over the workers only with their support!

The Socialist Standard has been printed monthly without interruption for over one hundred years: Indeed, this is all the more impressive considering periods of press censorship and the unilateral action of printing firms, the latter leading to the removal of an article concerning the death of George VI:

One year later, there was a new figurehead for the same old rotten system:

Years can pass between such articles appearing in our journal, an appropriately contemptuous lack of interest which is possibly only bettered at branch level:

"Islington branch of the Socialist Party of Great Britain, on this eightieth birthday of Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, hereby resolves to express its hostility to the existence of a monarchy and the parasitic class it represents. In an age when one third of the world's population suffers from malnutrition, when millions throughout the world face the indignity of the dole queue, when 53,000 families in Britain are homeless, when health facilities are cut back while money spent on nuclear warheads, for the workers of this country to be ecstatic that an aristocrat has survived to be eighty is distasteful in the extreme: The concern of our party remains with the wealth producers of the world, including those who face old age in poverty with the threat of hypothermia. Let Kings and Queens be left to the history books; let working people create a better society for ourselves." (4 August 1980)